MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2754202193

Microtensile bond strength of radicular dentin to non-metallic posts bonded with self-adhesive cements

2010· article· en· W2754202193 on OpenAlexaff
Renato Roperto, Omar El‐Mowafy, Sizenando de Toledo Porto Neto, Melissa A. Marchesan

Bibliographic record

VenueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas) · 2010
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldDentistry
TopicDental materials and restorations
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsBond strengthAdhesiveMaterials scienceDentinComposite materialSelf adhesiveDentistryMedicine
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Microtensile bond strength of radicular dentin bonded to glass fiber posts with self adhesive cements. Purpose. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the microtensile bond strength (μTBS) of glass fiber posts bonded to intraradicular dentin when self-adhesive resin cements were used. Methods. Eighty single-rooted teeth were endodontically treated and assigned to 8 groups (n=10). Two types of post were used: a glass fiber post (REFORPOST (RP)) and a flexible fiber post (EVERSTICK (EP)). These were cemented using 1 of 3 types of self-adhesive cement (UniCem (UN), BisCem (BC) or MaxCem (MC)) and a resin cement was used with a separate primer/bonding agent (Panavia F (PN)) for the control group. Specimens were thermocycled in water baths in temperatures ranging between 5°C - 55°C (3000 cycles), stored in water at 37°C for 1 week and then sectioned into 1.0 mm thick slices (3 from the cervical and 3 from the middle thirds of the roots). Slices were trimmed mesio-distally and subjected to μTBS testing. Data were analyzed by 3-way ANOVA. Post hoc Tukey intervals for comparison between the 2 post materials, 4 types of cement and 2 root regions were calculated (α=.05). Results. The multiple comparison test ranked dentin adhesion of the different resin cements in the following ascending order: MC < UN = BC < PN (P<.001). Statistical analysis also showed higher adhesion values for all cements associated with EP posts when compared to RP posts (P<.001). Some self-adhesive resin cements were capable of producing mean μTBS to radicular dentin similar to that obtained when control resin cement was used. Higher mean bond strength values in the cervical region were observed for all groups when compared to the middle third of root dentin. Clinical Significance The use of fiber-reinforced composite posts in combination with resin cements has been reported to be effective in restoring endodontically treated teeth with wide or flared canals, because fiber posts and resin composite have similar module of elasticity to teeth enabling loading forces to be transferred consistently from the restoration to the tooth structure. This study addresses one of the main concerns of such use, the bonding mechanism of different composite materials resin cements to posts and root dentin. © 2010 Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.010
GPT teacher head0.236
Teacher spread0.226 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations3
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueLA Referencia (Red Federada de Repositorios Institucionales de Publicaciones Científicas)Same topicDental materials and restorationsFrench-language works237,207